Sure - pretty much any time they update a lens, i.e. release a Mk II version, the previous version is retired. It might remain on some country-specific websites for a while, if they still have some of the old version in stock, but production of the old one is halted prior to the release of the updated. But that's not necessarily the case when they release a new lens, even if it seems a lot like the old one. The 100mm L macro isn't an upgrade of the non-L version. A 24-70mm f/2.8L IS would not be an upgrade of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, so they may or may not discontinue the non-IS version. They certainly didn't discontinue the non-IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms when they released the IS versions (although they did discontinue the 70-200/2.8 IS when they released the MkII version of that lens).

canon rumors FORUM

from what I've seen, Canon likes to do the "stealth retirement" as edwin calls it; the lens simply unceremoniously disappears from the website. what's more, they usually pre-empt the shakeup with a "crazy webpage" day, where all sorts of lenses go missing temporarily, throwing everyone into a tizzy, before putting most of them back right where they were, with a big grin on their face. I don't know if it's the way their web-design is set up, but I doubt it -- I call Canon shenanigans on that

Edwin Herdman

Speaking of the 24-70mm L, is there a rumor that a new one is coming along?

I've spent the last week looking at various standard zooms for my APS-C camera but with compatibility for a full-frame (or larger than APS-C) camera in the future, and the current 2002 model of the EF 20-70mm f/2.8 L seems my best bet. Upgrade or not, I need coverage in that focal length. The 17-55mm EF-s is, well, EF-s, and it has a poor minimum focus distance. Sigma and Tamron have interesting-looking options but word is the Tamron 17-50 isn't sharp at f/2.8, and (I missed this until now) the Sigma 17-70mm is a variable focal length option - 70mm is just f/4. One thing I'm wondering about is how the 24-70mm would stack up against the 17mm TS-e or the 24mm II and the other lenses shown in the frame edge comparisons - the 17-40mm and the 16-35 II don't seem all that great (though chromatic abberation isn't too big a deal), though the 16-35 II isn't dropping as much resolution as the 17-40mm.

The only downside to the Canon, besides price, appears to be the lack of IS. Flare characteristics seem pretty good. Of course the zoom range isn't as wide as 17mm, but I have a lens dedicated to that.

lot of people shooting pretty happily with 50 f/1.4s with no problems, and I'm one of them. definitely shoot plenty with it, and plenty with it in AF mode. considering it costs just over 3 times as much as the f/1.8, the question is really, is it 3 times better. between the image+bokeh quality and the build quality and the extra 2/3 stop of light, I'd say definitely yes.

lol! highly unlikely! The current 24-70L is a bit over weight for what it is (although fantastically robust). An f2 design would require the whole lens to double in size and weight.There was a prototype 35-70/f2 that was seen tested quite a few years back but I haven't heard anything about that lens for a long while.

Logged

NXT1000

why would canon need to release 35mm f1.4L ?? other than to sell it at higher price, it is perfect already, just like 300mm f2.8L, it is a perfect lens, they just want to make more money by raising price.

135mm f2 IS, that is good product if it is true. If they have no IS, again no reason other than to raise the price of the lens and make more profit.

Since they are unable to deliver lens that they promise, like 300mmL f2.8II etc, i expect zero new lens announcement, they have limited number of engineers, if they are firefight problem with those lens and damage by earthquake and power shortage, how in the world they can deliver new lens?